Haley Stevens tells @kaitlancollins she doesn't agree with her fiancé after he said he's voting for Mike Rogers.
"Like a lot of housholds across America, we’re a household divided. I still very much want our Democratic nominee — his name is Abdul — to win this race." #MISEN
BREAKING: Rob and Jesse respond to dem-world rumors that this is a trial balloon for @HaleyforMI endorsing Mike Rogers.
FLAHERTY: “Haley, don’t do it! …It is an unbelievably selfish move.”
https://t.co/7bL86prRmU
Did you guys fire a warning at Cory Booker or just Haley Stevens? Because Booker refused to say Abdul's name earlier tonight AND passed twice on telling Democrats in Detroit to support him!!
So, did I miss your warning to Senator Booker tonight? Are you warning him about being/becoming a pariah too? Or is it just to Haley?
https://t.co/esl3SlNxOV
BREAKING: Rob and Jesse respond to dem-world rumors that this is a trial balloon for @HaleyforMI endorsing Mike Rogers.
FLAHERTY: “Haley, don’t do it! …It is an unbelievably selfish move.”
https://t.co/7bL86prRmU
@patdennis I think if you view media consumption choices/differences/filter bubbles/whatever as a function of psychographics it actually makes a lot of sense tho
How should Democrats respond to anti-trans attacks? @KelleyJRobinson assesses @SherrodBrown's attempt.
ROBINSON: "The difference now to a few years ago is that Americans have seen literally thousands of anti-trans bills introduced across the country."
just one more industry-funded super PAC bro. i promise bro just one more super PAC and voters will love data centers. bro. forget the electric bills bro. just one more super PAC bro please we just need one more ad buy and we can build the data cent
NEW —
The super PAC for DATA CENTERS has arrived.
Meet Building the Future. The group is spending millions for Darline Graham in the homestretch, a preview of fights to come in 2028.
With @ELaserDavies:
https://t.co/91yNqjacJK
I thought this conversation was excellent, interesting, and well-facilitated. But wow did I find this exchange frustrating.
The dynamic at play here is that for-profit companies are racing to make a nearly-impossible-to-control technology that is smarter than we are at almost everything. If they get what they want, the best case scenario is it replaces humans at things and they get rich. The worst is that it kills people (and, likely, they get rich).
And maybe you don't think the "kill people" thing will happen. Cool. We should still have a democratic discussion about whether or not we want that before we get there, and if we do want it, what we want to use it for. And we should give us ourselves time to have that conversation.
It is also true that at the same time, AI is doing bad stuff right now. We should stop those bad things! And on top of those bad things, they are setting up an economic situation that leads to, through one door, job loss, and through the other, a massive market correction. We need to prepare for that reality.
But somehow a corner of the left has twisted itself into pretzels to say that “actually, regulating superintelligence plays into the hands of incumbents." But...the solution to incumbent-favoring regulation is to write better regulation, not to concede the question of what these systems become to the people building them.
Not regulating them plays into their hands! The whole thing is that their money (and concentration of power into their hands) comes when the technology is exponentially more powerful than it is right now.
This is just a different technology than we've dealt with before, and we need to act accordingly. Can’t we just...do all of this? What are we doing here?
https://t.co/WWtoU2MchG
So much happening in AI world. What should the govt do in response? Thanks to @SnehaRevanur@DKokotajlo@tylercowen@AlexBores & @Kabakab for hashing out answers with me in an NYT roundtable. https://t.co/RTULuW01RU